End of the Spits - The Supermarine Spiteful and Seafang

[@garygriffiths2911]

These things may have been made irrelevant by the advent of jet powered fighters but that doesn't make them any less magnificent. I love this channel by the way.

[@exb.r.buckeyeman845]

What a beautiful looking plane.

[@byronbailey9229]

Incidentally the 27 litre Merlin and the 34 litre Griffon have a very distinctive difference in their sound. I flew on a RAF Avro Shackleton with 4 Griffons and 8 contra- rotating props - lovely sound on takeoff and a big contrast to the Pratt and Whitney radials of the RNZAF Sunderland Mk5's I was a Navigator on.

[@atrium8609]

37 litre Griffon

[@nigelsmith7366]

Hello a fellow Kiwi... 👋

[@andrewharper3165]

I've come to the conclusion after 36 years in aviation that I know not a lot about WW2 military aviation. Another gem 💎 Ed. Great name Spiteful.

[@scrubsrc4084]

You know the most when you realise you dont know anything.

[@aaronlopez3585]

Ed you've out done yourself. This is the most entertaining and information packed video on the development of the super marine spitfire I've seen in years. The narration moves at brisk pace with out unnecessary verbiage. Thank you, Great job.

[@JohnyG29]

Supermarine*

[@larscelander5696]

The laminar flow wing is mainly a wing optimised for less drag at speed at the cost of low-speed handling. The USN was interested in the P-51, mainly for its long range, but found that its low-speed characteristics, including stall, made it unsuitable for carrier duty. Sounds like the same applied to the Seafang.

[@rob5944]

I note that those problems associated with that wing are hardly ever mentioned. R.J. Mitchell was obviously a very gifted designer.

[@jfess1911]

@@rob5944 The Mustang also had nasty stall characteristics, especially near full fuel load. This is why landing speed was over 110 mph. It did have good warning characteristics to help the pilots stay well above stall speed though.

[@jfess1911]

@ Lars Celander: Laminar flow wings were not well understood at this time. Wind tunnel tests predicted much lower drag than seen on actual aircraft. It turned out that the profile and surface smoothness had to be near perfect to achieve consistent laminar flow. Easy to do on a windtunnel model, difficult to do with riveted aluminum wings. Even with modern composite laminar-flow wings, a few bug hits or rain drops destroys the laminar flow. The unintentional benefit of the early laminar flow wings was that they delayed formation of a supersonic shock wave, allowing a higher "critical mach" and therefore higher maximum speed for the aircraft. Remember that lift is generated by accelerating the air over the top of the wing. This means that the air on the upper wing surface is traveling significantly faster than airplane itself. It turned out that laminar flow airfoils accelerated the air more gently and to a lower speed than standard airfoils of the day.

[@rob5944]

@@jfess1911 I must admit that it probably was the ultimate piston engined fighter, or at least one of . However the only real arbiters are the men that flew them, and they of course had their own opinions, and we must respect that.

[@rob5944]

@@jfess1911 so the original Spits elliptical wing was better in real world conditions at the time?

[@metalmadsen]

Denmark start using the Spitfire in 1949. Such an amazing and beautiful fighter. I saw one at an airshow once. It glided effortless through the air, while the Merlin engines purred. There was also a Mustang and a Messerschmidt. And they looked like powerfull weapons of war, while the Spitfire looked like a piece of art .

[@bobhodgson889]

Thanks for this Ed. I've long admired the sheer aesthetic gorgeousness of the Spiteful, but realise its shortcomings in the beginning of the jet age. What a shame none survive!

[@billlewsey7961]

They do in kit form.!

[@bobhodgson889]

@@billlewsey7961 Yes, I've got the Trumpeter kit, but 'haven't got round to' building it yet!

[@billlewsey7961]

@@bobhodgson889 I've got two, both unbuilt lol.

[@liverpoolscottish6430]

A late model Spitfire was nearly 100 mph faster than a Mk1, with twice the rate of climb, and in terms of firepower- possessed FIVE times the hitting power. A two second burst from a Mk1 Spit delivered a weight of fire of 8lb, whilst a SPit with 4 x 20mm cannon delivered *40lb* in terms of weight of fire. The figures speak for themselves!

[@dannycalley7777]

LS ............that's something anybody can come to terms with !!!!!!!!..........well put !!!!!

[@cyclingnerddelux698]

What gorgeous aircraft…lovely lines. Great episode as always. I really enjoy your work.

[@TristanTzara100]

Thank you for all these wonderful videos covering obscure and often forgotten aircraft. May I suggest the Boulton-Paul Sidestrand and Overstrand as a future project? I don't know why, but for some reason I am particularly fond of these types.

[@julianneale6128]

@ 01:33 the word 'airfoil' is American English for aerofoil. Just for your information, at 07:08. Counter-rotating props are when you have for instance one engine each side of the fuselage. Each of these engines drives a prop but in an opposite direction in reflection symmetry. Contra-rotation is what we are looking at here, where a single engine turns 2 propellers in opposite directions via a prop shaft within a prop shaft... I'm really enjoying your content. You're really cornering a place on KZbin that most don't cover. Keep up the good work.

[@scriptsmith4081]

Well that is fascinating. How does one engine drive two oppositely rotating propshafts? (I can visualize how the Wright Flyer did it, but that's it!)

[@jfess1911]

@@scriptsmith4081 Through gearsets. It proved problematic enough that it was not used a lot by the British or Americans. The Russians, however seemed to have more luck (see the Tu-95 Bear bomber).

[@billlewsey7961]

@@scriptsmith4081 gearbox old chap

[@billlewsey7961]

Thanks Ed, I don't know if you remember but I asked for a feature on the Spiteful a while ago, you said one was coming, you've outdone yourself. Thank you

[@EdNashsMilitaryMatters]

More than welcome Bill 😉

[@moss8448]

always wondered what that deal faded into

[@adampoultney8737]

Also worth noting is that the Supermarine Swift was based on the Attacker, and the Supermarine 545 on the Swift. In a way, a supersonic jet fighter, although one that was cancelled before the prototype flew, is the ultimate evolution of the Spitfire.

[@iskandartaib]

2:51 Reading Jeffrey Quill's book (see picture at 9:11), I noticed that the radiators had been moved backwards towards the rear of the wing. What I didn't notice was how wide the radiators had become.

[@scriptsmith4081]

or that the wings are no longer elliptical

[@alanrogers7090]

Ed, it's "Contra-Rotating", not "Counter-Rotating" propeller on the Seafang variant. "Counter" means two separate propellers rotating towards each other as in the Lockheed P-38. "Contra" means two propellers on a single engine rotating in opposite directions for two reasons. One - To reduce torque effects, and two - actually provides faster speeds that a single prop. The Royal Navy Gannett had this arrangement.

[@mikepette4422]

My cat's breath smells like cat food

[@owen368]

We live and learn thanks.

[@skaldlouiscyphre2453]

@@mikepette4422 Don't trip and bend your wookie.

[@josephking6515]

_two separate propellers rotating towards each other as in the Lockheed P-38_ My apologies for appearing to be pedantic Alan but the P-38 propellers rotated _away_ from each other as in the down going blade was on the outside of the arc (or the up going blade was on the fuselage side for each propeller). It is the only twin engine aircraft that I know of that has *two* critical engines.

[@BobSmith-dk8nw]

@@josephking6515 Yes. I was trying to think of another aircraft that did that but I just can't remember. I think there was ... In any case the Allison V1710 engines had a modular construction that facilitated them being able to do that - so that you had a Left Engine and a Right Engine. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allison_V-1710 .

[@quadri31]

I've heard about these but never really looked into it too much, thanks for opening my eyes into it, Ed!

[@EdNashsMilitaryMatters]

Happy to help!

[@bassmith448bassist5]

Love your chill narrative voice Ed.

[@stewartgrant9832]

The single F16 version actually had a three stage super charger and this blew up, causing the belly landing that ended with the lifting crane dropping the airframe and writing it off.

[@McRocket]

I did not know that the Spitfire variants got wide track landing gear (or a laminar flow wing). Thank you. BTW - 3:05 & 4:40 Simply, GORGEOUS aircraft!!! ☮

[@mrrolandlawrence]

indeed spitfire casualty rate of 30% was attributed to the narrow undercarrrige. wider was the way to go.

[@bobsakamanos4469]

@@mrrolandlawrence landing accidents were more due to the short horizontal distance between the wheel and the CofG. That's one of the lessons learned put into the Mustang design.

[@mpersad]

Congrats Ed, another terrific history of a classic. The video unpacks so much information even someone who thought he was well informed about the Spitfire, and it's derivatives, might have no idea about all this history. And that someone is me! ;)

[@dunruden9720]

it is derivatives??

[@byronbailey9229]

What a great video. I have a collectors edition JANES 1945 AIRCRAFT. The Spitfire had the highest diving Mcrit ( M0.83) of any WW11 fighter. I flew the Vampire ( then Sabre and Mirage ) and a colleague who had flown Mustangs and Vampires said the combat performance difference due the much higher energy of the jet fighter was huge.

[@jorgemtds]

On IL-2 I've flown the P-51 several times... inevitably resulting in at least one stall before I'm shot down. I now see the laminar wing is what makes it a very hard plane to fly in a dogfight. The Spitfire in that respect is just perfect indeed.

[@scriptsmith4081]

Chuck Yeager even makes reference to high speed stalls in his P-51 in his autobiography.

[@barryervin8536]

It's interesting how almost every manufacturer tried every trick in the book to increase the performance of their piston fighters, but regardless of power, low drag wings and tricky propellers 500 mph seemed to be an unbreakable barrier. The only production airplane to do it was the Tupolev TU-95 Bear, with 4 turboprops, as far as I know.

[@michaelgautreaux3168]

An empty A 400m can get mighty close!

[@barryervin8536]

@@michaelgautreaux3168 Yes, very close, but that just puts it on the list of production propeller airplanes that can fly almost500 mph. The TU-95 is still the only one that can exceed it, reaching about 575. If flat out speed is the objective jets are the way to go.

[@iffracem]

Isn't the issue with the propellers themselves? I read somewhere that when the prop blade goes supersonic (required for 500+ mph and a piston engine) it causes all sorts of issues, regardless of number of blades, contra-rating etc. These issues don't happen with turbo props, as the engine RPM is more suited to prop design optimised for higher revs. But I could be wrong, often am ;-)

[@thunberbolttwo3953]

The lockheed XFV was a prototype prototype vtol propeler fighter. With a alision xt40-a-14 turbo prop blade contra roating blades. Generating 5100 shp. Which made its max speed 580 mph. Cruising speed of 410 mph.

[@briancavanagh7048]

A heavily modified Bearcat, Rare Bear, did 528mph en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fastest_propeller-driven_aircraft

[@johndavey72]

Right on the button again Ed . Although l was slightly confused by the mk14 as l thought it to be the "Standard eliptical wing " Griffon powered Spitfire . And Frank Furlong was "cavorting " with Jeffrey Quill when he met his very untimely end . Apparently they were flying back to base after the various testing regimes and started fooling around . Frank inverted the Spitfire at very low altitude and plunged to his death . Jeffrey in his book , said he believed Frank to be one of the greatest test pilots he had the pleasure of meeting and was adamant the control's must have jammed . Jeffrey flew the Griffon prototype , a Mk Xll , itself a modified Mk lX DP 845 and declared it to be the best and most exciting Spitfire he ever flew ! They were hurried into production to challenge the V1 'buzz bombs " (Oh dear ! I've got carried away ! Sorry Ed ! ) Jeffrey Quill was Supermarines Test pilot and flew every Spitfire Mark .

[@EdNashsMilitaryMatters]

LOL feel free to carry on getting carried away, John :)

[@johndavey72]

@@EdNashsMilitaryMatters Thanks Ed . Your one of the few people who doesn't take offence and that's why we enjoy your company .

[@rednaughtstudios]

Jeffrey Quill's book "Spitfire: A Test Pilot’s Story" is a must read. His description of flying the very new Mk XII down low to suck the Germans into bouncing them and then turning the tables with it's brand new and more powerful Griffon engine is edge of the seat stuff. As is his description of a race between a FW190, a Typhoon and a prototype Griffon engined Spitfire.

[@jameswebb4593]

The Spitfire Mk X11 was introduced into front line squadrons in February 1943 , long before V1's were known about. Their strength lay in the incredible low altitude performance that eclipsed the hit and run raiding FW 190 & Bf 109's . With only 100 being built it is quite remarkable that the two squadrons being allocated X11's were still front line a year later.

[@bobsakamanos4469]

No, Furlong had been in a mock dogfight with test pilot Phil Wigley at the time of Furlong's Spiteful crash.

[@endo9913]

Great to see some new photos. Thanks!

[@josephalexander3884]

There was a Spiteful at the Santa Monica,California, aviation museum approximately 25 years ago. I had a chance to see it.

[@黎明不幸]

In my opinion, Seafung and Spiteful are the most beautiful piston fighters ever built by Britain. I personally preferred the Seafung a bit more since the contra-rotating propellers looks cooler for me. Anyway, thanks for the great work!

[@dunruden9720]

The Seafung was a Chinese copy!

[@timphillips9954]

The most beautiful full stop!

[@sealove79able]

A great very interesting video.

[@AnonNomad]

Another great video. Would love to see one about the Westland Wyvern.

[@welshpete12]

If a plane looks right it is right . And these look just beautiful !

[@iskandartaib]

The Attacker had a major problem - since it was based on the Spiteful wing (of which there were many already built and waiting for fuselages when the Spiteful was cancelled) it had to be a taildragger - fitting a tricycle undercarriage would have necessitated moving the already-built-in main gear backwards. And the RAF operated from a lot of grass fields. Supposedly an Attacker taking off would dig a deep furrow in the dirt, which would have to be filled in.

[@ianthomson9363]

To solve the problem, Supermarine designed new wings for the Attacker's fuselage, the result being the Swift.

[@billy.g3597]

I couldn't help but notice that the image of the Seafang shown at 7:06 has unusual exhaust pipes. Looking at the shadow cast under them , the pipes appear to be angled towards the prop. Normally them would of been angled towards the tail.

[@marchindy]

The exhaust does look like its pointed forward @ 7:06 but look at the same tail number @7:54 and its pointed correctly aft. Could be a weird shadow playing tricks on our eyes, good catch tho. Just my 2cents.

[@givenfirstnamefamilyfirstn3935]

The horizontal stabiliser shadow didn't mean that the tail was swept forward!

[@markrowland1366]

From ,1965, a Spitfire with six blade counter rotating prop was mounted at the Brevet club at Hardwood, the international airport and US base flying to Antarctica, in Christchurch, New Zealand.

[@sadwingsraging3044]

That 5 blade prop though... Work of art.

[@johnjephcote7636]

I discovered that the day I was born, the final Mk24 was sitting in the South Marston factory awaiting delivery. What a pity though, that not one Spiteful survived. What a speed for the Mk16! I'm glad you mentioned the jet Seafang, the Attacker. The Seafire 47 was built right up to 1949.

[@anselmdanker9519]

Great presentation. Thank you.

[@ottovonbismarck2443]

I want one. As usual, you did an excellent job. Thank you for your videos and keep them coming.

[@jackthebassman1]

Another superb post Ed, thank you.

[@EdNashsMilitaryMatters]

More than welcome.

[@rojaunjames747]

I HAVE BEEN WAITING FOR THIS VIDEO FOR SO LONG ITS FINALLY HERE

[@EdNashsMilitaryMatters]

;)

[@jaimehudson7623]

Spitfire... She is the most Beautiful airplane or moving machine ever created, in my book!

[@b577960]

I’d go further and say it was the most beautiful machine ever built and perhaps the greatest machine at a time when we really needed it

[@rovercoupe7104]

@@b577960Well said. M

[@briancavanagh7048]

Along the lines of using the laminar flow wing was Rolls Royces use of using surplus Mustang to piece together “Flying test bed” mid engine Griffon powered Mustang. Its difficult to find much on this subject as the project, other than a few photos of the mock up and diagrams of the exhaust augmented & turbine layout. The project was not given a go ahead after an inspection of the mockup by the Air Ministry in the UK about 1943. The reason for the project, I believe, was to provide additional space required for the for the exhaust augmented & turbine. A conventional front engine layout ran out of room due to the location of the firewall with the front engine installation. I wonder if hidden in the bowels of the Rolls Royce archives is the full story on this project.

[@csjrogerson2377]

superb video. Shame the last Seafangs were all scrapped and that no one had the foresight to keep just one wrapped in cotton wool in a nice dry hangar. Or better still, in my Dad's shed.

[@shelbyseelbach9568]

Dude, that Supermarine Attacker jet shown at the very end was pretty cool looking. Then they showed it land and I realized it was a freaking taildragger. As an American born in 73, this plane had somehow never appeared in my radar. I love these early jets, to see one in service as a taildragger, in naval service no less, is simply cool as hell. Now I gotta go look up all I can find on this plane. Too damn cool.

[@EdNashsMilitaryMatters]

Lol I'll have to do a video on it one day

[@shelbyseelbach9568]

@@EdNashsMilitaryMatters So cool. I'm already trying to figure out if I could scratch build in balsa for about a 90mm EDF. Ooh-ooooh. I love the looks of all these earlyy jets, they are all so unique yet all share a look somehow. This plane is like the poster child of this transitional age. Taildragger jet fighters are so rare. Preproduction ME-262 comes to mind and then my mind goes blank.

[@deltavee2]

Thank you Ed, for tidying up the end of the line started by Supermarine for racing purposes, on floats. It is a fabulous lineage equally rich in technology and exploits.

[@ericgrace9995]

Perhaps the most beautiful fighter I've seen..

[@lesterbeedell9725]

The Spitfires manufactured at the Sadia works in Salisbury were taken to High Post to be assembled and test flown by Frank Furlong who I believe was a jockey

[@johnforsyth7987]

Another wonderful video Mr. Nash. Have you ever considered doing on a little known aircraft. The Seversky P-35 The Republic P-43 Lancer. These planes that helped give birth to the P-47 Thunderbolt. Mr. Seversky' story in interesting as well.

[@tarikwildman]

You have cornered the market on witty and dead accurate obscure aircraft histories. Even Dr. Mark Felton has nothing on you here. Bravo Ed Nash and thank you !

[@markholroyde9412]

....but doesn't know the difference between "Counter" and "Contra" props, . Its all Wiki stuff LOL

[@Holland41]

One Spitfire is kept in flying condition in Australia by 100 Squadron RAAF. Originally A58-758, it is now painted as A58-602 as flown by Aussie fighter ace Bobby Gibbes.

[@Holland41]

It's a Spitfire Mk VIII.

[@stephenbesley3177]

That late 40s period is interesting for all the varieties of aircraft that were being tested being either jet or prop. The writing was on the wall by the early 50's however and all manner of jets were being built even amphibious ones

[@ronaldfitzsimmons9902]

Great Video keep the good work up and very knowledgeable.

[@PeteCourtier]

If the day comes when you run out of aircraft to discuss, I’d watch you talk about “Malcolm hoods” on mustangs and the history of Rotol propellers 👍 Great stuff👍

[@EdNashsMilitaryMatters]

Honestly, think I'll never run out of planes!

[@Eric-kn4yn]

​@@EdNashsMilitaryMattersmalcolm hoods p51 were faster the bubble canopy was as areodynamic

[@dude126]

Excellent video. I love finding out new info.

[@gwaithwyr]

The laminar flow diagram seems just to show a symmetrical section. I think a laminar flow wing would have itzs thickest part further back.

[@string-bag]

Thanks Ed, love your videos and I really enjoyed reading your book.

[@stuartwren5526]

Another great presentation. Thanks

[@memonk11]

Those were some beautiful aircraft.

[@michaelgautreaux3168]

👍😉, many thanx Mr. Nash. Be safe 🦊

[@markrowland1366]

A sea fang was mounted on display at the Brevet club by Hareward airport Christchurch, New Zealand in the 1970s. It was maintained by Air NZ, apprentices.

[@bobhodgson889]

Never heard of that! What happened to it?

[@Aquila-sz8pl]

Excellent video. Thankyou

[@BatMan-xr8gg]

Thanks Ed, lots of stuff I did not know before, and the video was great. Cheers

[@McRocket]

7:00 - 'there was also a passenger version of the Seafang. With two, small windows behind the cockpit and a single passenger seat.' 😉

[@thomaskavanagh549]

I think they're windows for the cameras...

[@localbod]

Another fantastic and informative video.

[@mongoose4117]

Rare footage of a supermarine attacker at the end! Wow😎👍💯

[@discount8508]

great vid .....is there any chance of doing a video on the short stirling? .......theres not much on youtube about it which is strange because it served longer than any other 4 engine bomber in the RAF

[@EdNashsMilitaryMatters]

It's on the list, promise :)

[@rangefinder3538]

Another great one ED!

[@brentfellers9632]

Westland wyvern please!!!

[@andyc3088]

The Royal Navy selected the Hawker Sea Fury which entered service in 1947 and remained the FAA primary frighter to 1953. The RNVR used the aircraft to August 1955.

[@nickdanger3802]

Because the Sea Fury had a radial engine?

[@FeldwebelWolfenstool]

...around 1960, I watched a Spit do a barrel roll above me as I was walking to the park downtown at YQT. The WW2 pilot/owner was a richie-rich blue-blood who's family owned a Terminal Grain Elevator. So, after the War, he bought himself a plane, hot-rodded it here for a while and later donated it to a Canadian museum...

[@terraflow__bryanburdo4547]

Such a beauty...and 494 mph!

[@Robutube1]

Er... what Aaron Lopez says! Nice one (again) Ed 👍.

[@colinleighfield7170]

The Spiteful wing was not thinner than the Spitfire wing, it was thicker. 14% at the root down to 8% at the tip, the Spitfire was 12% down to 6%. It was thought the "laminar-flow" wing would more than offset the extra drag that caused, but it didn't work. The limiting Mach number of the Spiteful was 0.82, same as the P51. The Spitfire was found by the High Speed Flight to have a number of 0.92. The thinner wing was better than the laminar flow. The higher level speed of the Spiteful was likely due to its smaller wing area and lower drag of the cooling system. The Seafang F32 was only about 20 mph faster than the Seafire 47, and had a landing speed about 30 mph higher. The Navy rejected it and chose the Seafire 47 instead. The Spiteful wing was used on the Attacker, but that took a long time to develop and was a mediocre aeroplane. The re-engineered Spitfire wing from the 20 series Spitfire would have been a better choice. The brilliant test-pilot Jeffrey Quill told designer Joe Smith that the Attacker would have been a better plane with a Spitfire wing. "Laminar-Flow" didn't work. The head of design at North American post-war, Lee Attwood, said that was also true of the P51. It's high level speed was down to the very low drag of the cooling system, designed on Meredith principles. It added 30/35 mph to the top speed, the laminar flow didn't work as it was expected to. The Spiteful was a dead-end.

[@riccicrozzie8204]

Thank you Sir. 👍

[@grosbeakmc]

Great video full of information that was new to me. Thanks!

[@PeteSampson-qu7qb]

One could make a very strong case that the Spit was the best short range dogfighter of the war. There was a bad patch with the 109F and Fw 190, while it was operating at a disadvantage on the wrong side of the Channel, but a good pilot could best anything he faced from start to end. That is not in dispute. But... The Griffon, not to mention the rest of the evolution, probably would have diminished its reputation had the war continued. I might even be led to consider that, had large numbers of Spits and Me 262s met, Spit IXs might have proven more capable than the Griffons. We'll never know but but I don't recall many pilots thinking the late models were superior in anything but brute power and that didn't count against jets. She did herself proud from start to end but, like a film star, one sort of wishes she had been allowed to move into smaller but memorable roles without the "new nose" of the Griffon or those hideous, straight taper, wings that belonged to the next generaJets. Cheers!

[@ShaunRoberts1]

Very interesting and great work as usual 👍👍

[@bassmith448bassist5]

The Seafang F31 looks like an awesome concept!!! I wonder if there are any surviving examples of these amazing aircraft????

[@stevetournay6103]

No. Closest thing is one Attacker (same wing as the Seafang F32) in a UK museum...

[@guaporeturns9472]

Late model bubble canopy Griffon engined deep chord rudder four cannon armed versions are the most beautiful Spitfires ever built.

[@LukeBunyip]

6:57 Oi, wot's with that porthole just in front of the roundel?

[@leifvejby8023]

Probably cameraports

[@razor1uk610]

It's an observation window in the upper access hatch into the equipment bay, where the battery/batteries, master gyrocompass and main radio were located. Also if fitted, it allowed access to the photo-recon camera's film cassette.

[@KevTheImpaler]

The Spiteful is like the Gloster Gladiator. An improvement of existing technology when a paradigm shift was in transition in a new era.

[@russellblake9850]

Does the Seafang arrestor hook really stick out from the rudder ??

[@shauny2285]

Off topic, but I'd be interested in your opinion on the military situation in Afganastan.

[@EdNashsMilitaryMatters]

Its appears to be completely f**ked, tbh ☹

[@patriotunion7211]

Without the elliptical wing, it's not really a Spitfire is it?

[@billlewsey7961]

No, it's a Spiteful, an evolution of the Spitfire

[@GetInGarage]

well done I did not now about these two aircraft

[@MisteriosGloriosos922]

*Another great video. I liked and Subscribed*

[@Slaktrax]

IIRC the Griffon 101 was fitted with a 3-speed, 3-stage supercharger (?)

[@craigmoloney4486]

What a lovely looking aircraft but the Gloster Meteor and Hawker Sea Fury were coming into service.

[@michaelgautreaux3168]

They were better than the Mk 47s. Many thanx Ed 👍👍

[@andrewmetcalfe9898]

I seriously doubt that either the spiteful or seafang would have been successful combat aircraft. Even if WW2 did not end in 45 and even if jet fighters did not come along until much later. That stall characteristic of the wing was significant. But it was not the only problem, or even the most important. Firstly, Laminar wings didn’t really produce actual laminar air flows in production aircraft. At least of that era. The much vaunted mustang had a laminar designed wing, but the NACA reports at the time fairly implied - and later NASA publications flat out stated - that laminar flows were never achieved in production models. In truth the high economy speed of the mustang (ideal for long range bomber escorts) and high maximum speeds of that aircraft were due to its extremely low parasitic drag characteristics. Having a thin wing helped (just like the original spitfire wing frontal section), but things like having fully enclosed landing gear, high spec build quality, small parasitic drag in the radiator scoop (when compared with the mid to late war variants of the spit’s twin wing mounted radiators) and a much more effective use of the Meredith effect than either the spit or its close contemporary - the Bf109 - were able to achieve were the real reasons. However, on top of that, the laminar design wing of the Spiteful had one massively important draw back - the amount of effort required to keep the wing surfaces perfectly smooth proved impractical. Whilst in pristine condition the speeds quoted sound great, as soon as the wing went slightly out of true (which happened almost immediately) the speed performance dropped immediately by between 30 and 50mph - taking the plane right back to a similarly powered contemporary Spitfire. Further, once in combat concerns such as laminar airflow lost priority over issues such as induced drag, the ability of the aircraft to change direction on each of the three axis (pitch, roll and yaw) and frankly the redesigned spitfire wing - with the enlarged piano hinged ailerons was just … better. Its maximum dive speed was the best of any WW2 piston engined airplane. Coupled with the 60 or 80 series griffin it had superior rate of climb. A better angle of attack. Supermarine chief test pilot Jeffrey Quill details all of these considerations in his book, concluding that the spiteful wing was a mistake. However, the spiteful tail plane was a roaring success and resolved a perennial long running problem with all marks of the spitfire - longitudinal stability. Once that was solved the way forward for the spitfire to compete against more recent designs such as the tempest/sea fury was clear. However the end of WW2 and the dawn of the jet age didn’t see a spitfire developed to take an engine with more power than about 2350bhp, whereas the Sea Fury got one last bit of the cherry in terms of horsepower: which was a good thing really because its overall design was more suited to naval operations: although both planes fought successfully alongside each other in Korea.

[@smithy2389]

Great to see someone comment who finally understands aviation!

[@marklittle8805]

Excellent points. I am not a fan of the Seafang or Spiteful. The gains in speed and range were marginal to the later Spits.

[@vanmust]

lots of inacuracies that I am too tired to mention "it's maximum dive speed was the best of any WW2 piston engined airplane" numbers? FW Ta i52 had a dive speed of 540 m/h....Mustang's 501 is unimpressive as for the spit family don't even bother to deal with...they were all obsolete in the new era

[@smithy2389]

@@vanmust I think he’s talking about aileron reversal speed of 850mph although the spitfire would never be capable of achieving that in a dive before the other problems like reduction gear broke!

[@vanmust]

@@smithy2389 that is quite different than what he said and the flexibility of the wing tip may cause ultimately the plane to dive rolling uncontrollably till either disintegration or crash....by the way I am a Naval Architect but air and water have some physical similarities

[@remomontefino9820]

Great video and interesting info. Ciao

[@danpatterson8009]

"...and then completely written off when the recovery crane dropped it." Sigh. Ironic that the rapid technical advances in piston-powered aircraft during the war saw their ultimate realization in planes that went to scrap in a matter of months, while examples of their less-advanced predecessors are still flying 75 years later.

[@marktaylor6491]

The eternal question. What was the supreme UK propeller fighter? The Spiteful or the MB5?

[@marktaylor6491]

@@WALTERBROADDUS I should have said 'land based'. Carrier planes had an extra few years to develop. Hence why they were superior.

[@raypurchase801]

@@WALTERBROADDUS Maybe the late Tempests. (OK, a sort of Sea Fury.)

[@smithy2389]

DH Hornet F1

[@MARTINA-gc3tq]

What is the wing of planes at 15 seconds ?.....

[@ianthomson9363]

Those are Spitfire Mk Vs. The addition of the tropical air filter under the engine gives them quite a different look.

[@stevebroughton4787]

Joe Smith took over as chief designer in 1937, after RJ Mitchell's death. The Spitfire in all it's guises served it's nation well.

[@AudieHolland]

The reason why the 'old Spitfire' was kept in service for longer than its supposed successors, I suspect, is because everybody in the RAF (pilots, officers and air marshalls) couldn't let go of their 'Spit.' They just liked/loved it too much. Think that is far fetched? When the British Police got to use the Rover 2600 economy variant of the luxury Rover 3500 in the 1970s or early 1980s, they liked it so much that when the time came for the Rover 2600 to be retired in the late 1980s, some units started stockpiling their Rovers so they could drive the model for as long as possible.

[@EdNashsMilitaryMatters]

LOL entirely possible!

[@georgebarnes8163]

Yep, My Grandfather told me he was in tears (both sadness and anger) when his entire fleet of Short Sunderlands were crushed for scrap at the end of the war, perfectly good aircraft as well , not a fast graceful aircraft like the Spitfire but he loved the Sunderland as it was the big boat he served on for most of the war.

[@thethirdman225]

No. The reason was that the Spitfire wing proved to be better than expected and the Spiteful wing not as good. The nasty stall characteristics could probably have been resolved with a bit of tip washout. But it’s easy with hindsight…

[@keefymckeefface8330]

those rovers had a specific engine which the traffic plod loved cos it went really fast- they liked it cos it did the job. (im told by an old plod) and sometimes ¨new¨ isnt ¨better¨ (known as the Zumwalt paradox, natch.)

[@AudieHolland]

@@keefymckeefface8330 Not just the engine, those Rovers looked really cool IMO.

[@sharatsharma8273]

Interesting.having a stable fighter in war time was essential.that the spitfire did.great aircraft.but had to give way to jets.that the jets came so soon is also quite stunning.

[@davidgifford8112]

Interesting review of these late mark Spits. The original wing was noteworthy for its progressive stall characteristics. They stalled from the tip, giving the pilot warning before a full stall. This was considered a good thing. Little surprise to find a revised laminar flow wing reduced drag at the cost of “vicious” stall characteristics.

[@bobhodgson889]

Don't want to nitpick, but I think you mean 'stalled from the root'. Always a good idea, so aileron control is maintained through the stall, usually with the help of a little washout.

[@givenfirstnamefamilyfirstn3935]

Wash-out gave lower incidence at the tips so that when the roots were significantly stalled the outer wing with the ailerons was still flying. So the original Spitfire roots stalled first.

[@tedburnard841]

The Supermarine Attacker at the end of this video is the only jet powered tail dragger I have ever seen.